Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 30, 2014 12:57:52 GMT -5
See this thread started in the GolfWRX.com forum - www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1082799-kelvin-miyahira-pro-or-con/
It started off by critiquing KM, but morphed into a criticism of both KM/Jeffy and me.
Tod Johnson made the following comment on page 19-: "Jeff Mann is a pathological liar, it comes as naturally to him as breathing. I'm not sure he is even aware of it. Creating some goofy definition of the downswing that includes the follow-through is something he'd do instinctively to avoid being "wrong", at least in his warped world."
Tod Johnson is obviously Jeffy, who is using that name as an alias because he has been previously banned from that forum. Jeffy has been calling me a pathological liar whenever he believes that I misrepresent his "personal idea of reality". By the way, I have never defined the downswing as including the followthrough! I have always defined the downswing as being the time period between P4 and P7. I personally define the followthrough as the time period between P7 and the time point when both arms are fully straight, which usually happens between P7.2 and P7.5. The time period after the followthrough is what I define as the finish phase of the swing. These are standard TGM definitions, which I have personally adopted.
TD (Jeffy) also wrote the following in page 20-: " No. Mann is just blatantly misrepresenting Gracovetsky, aka "lying", because he doesn't like Kelvin. And he is completely ignorant of coupled motion of the spine (he claims it is a "wild theory" of Gracovetsky's), so he's unqualified to opine on the subject."
Jeffy always labels me a liar when I harbor a different opinion. He is crazily wrongheaded to claim that I am completely ignorant of "coupled motion" of the spine. I have unequivocally, and repeatedly, stated that rotary motions of the upper torso and shoulders get transmitted down the spine and paraspinal tissues via the "coupling motion" (between the upper and lower spine) and they synergistically assist in helping the pelvis to continue to rotate during the mid-late downswing. My real criticism of the "spine engine" theory has never been proven wrong by Jeffy - and it is based on two incontestable facts that i) the degree of right lateral bend in the early downswing between P4 and P5.5 is too small to be significant and ii) the concave-compressed curve of the right lateral bend involves the lower thoracic vertebra (which are incapable of interlocking like gears) and it doesn't involve the lumbar spine.
Petter7 wrote-: "Obviously you haven't spent any time interacting with him over at NGI about the golf swing. If you could read the pages and pages of nonsensical crap going back and forth with that guy you'd understand.
As I said, he has methodically deleted all of it to save face."
He is free to state that my opinions re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics is "nonsensical crap", but he is obviously wrong to state that I have deleted all criticism of my personal opinions re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics in order to "save face". I have only deleted posts that were inflammatory "ad hominem" attacks on me (or another forum member) or that were tangentially irrelevant to a thread's discussion. All the posts by Jeffy, or Chipitin, or Konrad, that criticised my personal opinions re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics were never deleted.
Petter7 also wrote-: "True that…Kelvin blows Mann away when it concerns anything to do with the game of golf or the golf swing. Half the stuff Mann professes these days he got from Kelvin.
He just lies and calls it his own. He just flat out stole Kelvin's drive/hold release, made up his own interpretation of it, then turned around and said Kelvin had no clue what he was talking about."
He is free to believe that KM is much more knowledgeable/accurate than me when it comes to personal opinions re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. However, he is obviously wrong when he states that I stole KM's "drive-hold release" ideas. The true facts are readily apparent in my latest review paper, when I unequivocally stated that I liked KM's"drive-hold" term, but that I disagree with his ideas on the underlying biomechanics. In my latest review paper, I refined the definition of the term "drive-hold" and I provided my personal opinions on the biomechanical/mechanical factors that allow a golfer to perform a DH-hand release action. He is free to reject my personal opinions, but he is grossly uncivilized to label my actions as being an "act of stealing" because I fully acknowledged that I derived the term "drive-hold" from KM (even though I rejected his biomechanical reasoning).
There is only one potentially useful discussion re: golf swing biomechanics happening in that 20-page thread (which is mainly an endless litany of ad hominem insults) and it relates to the motion of the sacrum in Jamie Sadlowski's and Ben Hogan's swings. The incontrovertible fact is that the sacrum will always move counterclockwise, and therefore away from the target, when the pelvis rotates counterclockwise during the downswing. That biomechnical phenomenon particularly happens in Jamie Sadlowski's downswing because his pelvis remains centralised between his feet during his downswing - note how much his left thigh is angled away from the target at impact.
By contrast, the sacrum may move towards the target during the downswing (even while it is rotating counterclockwise) if there is a lot of left-lateral linear motion of the pelvis happening during the downswing (happening while the pelvis rotates counterclockwise). Front-foot golfers, who have their left thigh more vertical at impact, and who have their left hip joint located vertically above the left foot at impact, will likely have a biomechanical scenario where the sacrum moves targetwards during the downswing (even while it was rotating away from the target due to the rotary motion of the pelvis) because the degree of left-lateral motion of the entire pelvis towards the target is greater in its effect on the degree of absolute motion of the sacrum away/towards the target - than the effect due to a pure pelvic rotation.
Jeff.
It started off by critiquing KM, but morphed into a criticism of both KM/Jeffy and me.
Tod Johnson made the following comment on page 19-: "Jeff Mann is a pathological liar, it comes as naturally to him as breathing. I'm not sure he is even aware of it. Creating some goofy definition of the downswing that includes the follow-through is something he'd do instinctively to avoid being "wrong", at least in his warped world."
Tod Johnson is obviously Jeffy, who is using that name as an alias because he has been previously banned from that forum. Jeffy has been calling me a pathological liar whenever he believes that I misrepresent his "personal idea of reality". By the way, I have never defined the downswing as including the followthrough! I have always defined the downswing as being the time period between P4 and P7. I personally define the followthrough as the time period between P7 and the time point when both arms are fully straight, which usually happens between P7.2 and P7.5. The time period after the followthrough is what I define as the finish phase of the swing. These are standard TGM definitions, which I have personally adopted.
TD (Jeffy) also wrote the following in page 20-: " No. Mann is just blatantly misrepresenting Gracovetsky, aka "lying", because he doesn't like Kelvin. And he is completely ignorant of coupled motion of the spine (he claims it is a "wild theory" of Gracovetsky's), so he's unqualified to opine on the subject."
Jeffy always labels me a liar when I harbor a different opinion. He is crazily wrongheaded to claim that I am completely ignorant of "coupled motion" of the spine. I have unequivocally, and repeatedly, stated that rotary motions of the upper torso and shoulders get transmitted down the spine and paraspinal tissues via the "coupling motion" (between the upper and lower spine) and they synergistically assist in helping the pelvis to continue to rotate during the mid-late downswing. My real criticism of the "spine engine" theory has never been proven wrong by Jeffy - and it is based on two incontestable facts that i) the degree of right lateral bend in the early downswing between P4 and P5.5 is too small to be significant and ii) the concave-compressed curve of the right lateral bend involves the lower thoracic vertebra (which are incapable of interlocking like gears) and it doesn't involve the lumbar spine.
Petter7 wrote-: "Obviously you haven't spent any time interacting with him over at NGI about the golf swing. If you could read the pages and pages of nonsensical crap going back and forth with that guy you'd understand.
As I said, he has methodically deleted all of it to save face."
He is free to state that my opinions re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics is "nonsensical crap", but he is obviously wrong to state that I have deleted all criticism of my personal opinions re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics in order to "save face". I have only deleted posts that were inflammatory "ad hominem" attacks on me (or another forum member) or that were tangentially irrelevant to a thread's discussion. All the posts by Jeffy, or Chipitin, or Konrad, that criticised my personal opinions re: golf swing biomechanics/mechanics were never deleted.
Petter7 also wrote-: "True that…Kelvin blows Mann away when it concerns anything to do with the game of golf or the golf swing. Half the stuff Mann professes these days he got from Kelvin.
He just lies and calls it his own. He just flat out stole Kelvin's drive/hold release, made up his own interpretation of it, then turned around and said Kelvin had no clue what he was talking about."
He is free to believe that KM is much more knowledgeable/accurate than me when it comes to personal opinions re: golf swing mechanics/biomechanics. However, he is obviously wrong when he states that I stole KM's "drive-hold release" ideas. The true facts are readily apparent in my latest review paper, when I unequivocally stated that I liked KM's"drive-hold" term, but that I disagree with his ideas on the underlying biomechanics. In my latest review paper, I refined the definition of the term "drive-hold" and I provided my personal opinions on the biomechanical/mechanical factors that allow a golfer to perform a DH-hand release action. He is free to reject my personal opinions, but he is grossly uncivilized to label my actions as being an "act of stealing" because I fully acknowledged that I derived the term "drive-hold" from KM (even though I rejected his biomechanical reasoning).
There is only one potentially useful discussion re: golf swing biomechanics happening in that 20-page thread (which is mainly an endless litany of ad hominem insults) and it relates to the motion of the sacrum in Jamie Sadlowski's and Ben Hogan's swings. The incontrovertible fact is that the sacrum will always move counterclockwise, and therefore away from the target, when the pelvis rotates counterclockwise during the downswing. That biomechnical phenomenon particularly happens in Jamie Sadlowski's downswing because his pelvis remains centralised between his feet during his downswing - note how much his left thigh is angled away from the target at impact.
By contrast, the sacrum may move towards the target during the downswing (even while it is rotating counterclockwise) if there is a lot of left-lateral linear motion of the pelvis happening during the downswing (happening while the pelvis rotates counterclockwise). Front-foot golfers, who have their left thigh more vertical at impact, and who have their left hip joint located vertically above the left foot at impact, will likely have a biomechanical scenario where the sacrum moves targetwards during the downswing (even while it was rotating away from the target due to the rotary motion of the pelvis) because the degree of left-lateral motion of the entire pelvis towards the target is greater in its effect on the degree of absolute motion of the sacrum away/towards the target - than the effect due to a pure pelvic rotation.
Jeff.